[MUSIC] Freedom and autonomy, an introduction. Hi. Welcome back. So far we've considered several different answers to the question why should we have a state. These answers have included the role the state might play in promoting happiness or welfare or bringing about justice or abiding by constraints of equality. Or helping to bring about a more egalitarian society. In this final series of segments discussing this question of why should we have a state directly, we'll consider a family of answers that focuses on the moral significance or moral importance of freedom and the role that the state might play in connection to freedom. In popular political discussion it's common to hear people talk about the importance of freedom or liberty. So philosophers talk about autonomy and self government in much the same spirit. As with equality as we mentioned last time, there's this kind of general agreement that freedom or liberty or autonomy is a good thing. But there's much less agreement about exactly what's meant by freedom or what freedom requires. So almost every state, every political society sets out the importance or liberty as one of the core values. So what I want to do in this segment and the next several segments is to offer some philosophical ideas and tools. To help evaluate claims of this sort, to help evaluate claims about the state's role in promoting or impeding freedom, so that we can help get clear on what we want when we care about freedom, and how the state might help or impede us in being free. So let's start with some actual legal text. So the preamble to the United States Constitution says the following. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. And secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America. So liberty is set out as an important core value. On the other hand that is the only appearance of the word in the US Constitution. And the word freedom does not appear at all. Indeed the only appearance of the word free comes in this passage which does more to highlight the un-freedom that was at the core of the original United States. So this is the passage where the word free appears. It says Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this union according to their respective numbers. Which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, three-fifths of all other Persons. So free Persons were explicitly described as free, leaving a category of other Persons to refer to the thousands and thousands of brutally unfree and slaved people living in the United States. At the time of the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1790, 20% of the people living in the United States were enslaved. In some of the states the percentage was much higher. So in South Carolina, roughly 60% of the population was enslaved. In Virginia it was around 40%. So that's the US Constitution itself. So outside of that in the Bill of Rights, which was put in at the same time as amendments to this constitution, the word free appears again several times. So the first amendment prevents the US Congress from interfering with free exercise of religion. And from abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. And to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So that's all in the First Amendment. And the Second Amendment notes the importance of a well-regulated militia to the security of the free state. So there's a sense in which the United States was founded based on the idea of freedom. But there is also, even at this founding, a deep tension in this effort. Similarly, we see this kind of tension in a country, Cuba, that's very different than the United States. So in Article 1 of the current Cuban constitution, it's stated that Cuba is a socialist state of workers, independent and sovereign. Organized with all and for the good of all as a united democratic republic for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective welfare, and human solidarity. So political freedom's highlighted, but it's also explicitly stated that Cuba is a socialist state. So this is not one of the questions that can be taken up or challenged using one's political freedom. You can't challenge the socialist character of the State. Article 9 of the Cuban Constitution says that the State both guarantees the freedom and full dignity of men but also that the State channels the efforts of the nation in the construction of socialism. And directs the national economy in a planned manner. So again, you get this idea of freedom, but coupled with these other commitments that don't seem to be up for discussion. Perhaps most nakedly paradoxical, Article 53 of the Cuban constitution states that citizens have freedom of speech and of the press. In keeping with the objectives of socialist society, material conditions for the exercise of that right, are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, movies, and other organs of the mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at the exclusive service of the working people and in the interest of society. So one has freedom of speech in this article 53 provision but only in keeping with certain objectives. This might seem like the opposite of right to free speech. And the state itself controls all the institutions of mass media. Which again might seem to be a kind of denial of a certain kind of freedom to express one's opinion. So even in the aspirational documents of these two very different political societies, we see a deep tension with respect to freedom. And things might be even worse for freedom in practice as societies often do not live up to the ideals they set out in documents of this sort. So these kinds of tensions might just be dismissed as a historical accident of a certain kind. And it's certainly true that I chose Cuba and the United States. As particularly good examples of this tension between freedom on a certain way, but sort of denial of freedom in another way. But there's some reason to think that the state often will involve a somewhat paradoxical relationship to freedom and liberty. So this tension, you might suggest, is generated in part by the fact that there are at least two important distinctions with, with respect to thinking about freedom, liberty, and autonomy. So the first distinction is between what's called positive and negative freedom. That's one distinction, and we'll talk about that. The second distinction is between what we might call individual and community freedom. So you have both positive and negative freedom, and individual and community freedom. So the state might play a role in promoting freedom but it also might serve to undermine freedom. As political actions are backed by the coercive force of the state and states serve to limit or restrict what people can do. And a community might organize to become free as a community, becoming a self-governing entity sort of trying to get a democratic say. But in doing so, that community might set out a set of ideals or values that not everyone signs off on, creating a tension between the state that's been created, and individual freedom. The freedom of those individuals who find themselves within such a state, but with dissenting ideas or values. So in the next several segments, we'll explore the distinction between positive and negative freedom, and between individual and community freedom. And we'll talk about the role that states might play, with respect to all four of these different kinds of freedom.
